Talk:Falun Gong

RFC on lead

How should the lead section deal with the characterization of the group as a cult by the Chinese government? Leugen9001 (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I think users on all sides should desist from edit warring. We should maintain the previous consensus wording until a new consensus is reached. Leugen9001 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree- the possible inclusion of the "evil cult" characterization is best first confronted here. A large number of articles suggest the relationship of Falun Gong and the Chinese government is topical and noteworthy. That said, placing the adversarial characterization of a conflicting partisan at the lead elevates that view and synthesizes a definitive authority. It seems a bald smear. Imagine the VERY FIRST characterization of Homosexuality being cast by Jerry Falwell- "Homosexuality, alternatively known as a vile and satanic system will one day be utterly annihilated and there'll be a celebration in heaven-" Clearly inappropriate, right? While the regard of bigots toward homosexuals may have an appropriate place somewhere on that page, elevating that regard to a definitive place in the lead would promote a highly subjective partisan perspective at a place and in a manor at odds with the purpose of objective Wikipedia editors.

Mavigogun (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a false equivalence between the fringe, fundamentalist Christian far-right in the U.S. (Falwell on homosexuality) and multiple mainstream WP:RS, one of which is published by a U.S.-based public education 501(c)3 nonprofit. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

After claiming "multiple mainstream" sources, you cite yet another Chinese government propaganda piece. Discerning credible sources is fundamental to the integrity of Wikipedia, and ourselves as editors.Mavigogun (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You have no evidence for your own hyper-partisan claim that the U.S.-based nonprofit source I gave, which was previously present as reference number 6, has anything to do with Beijing. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The "article" reproduced at the web site link you provided was produced by an organ of the Chinese government- "sponsored by the the Centre for the Study of Destructive Cults in China and published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences". What you've characterized as a "hyper-partisan claim" is in fact merely reporting the content of your reference. Clearly, these organizations are expressions of the Chinese government- and by definition have 'everything to do with Beijing'. As an aside, conveyance of non-profit status in the US does not impart or signify any sort of credibility/authority- it's a tax distinction, not a content endorsement. Our interests here would be better served were you, CaradhrasAiguo, to make your focus the article and its sources rather than pejorative characterization of my motive. Presuming good faith is fundamental to collaborative efforts.

Mavigogun (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment Both sides agree that it is notable that some characterize the group as a cult. If we do want to include it in the lede, it should be done in a responsible and organic way. is alternatively known as a cult sounds quite awkward. The Chinese government says the group is a cult, but it has not changed the group's name to "a cult". Instead, it should be more like seen as a cult by the Chinese government and some/few external scholars with the language adjusted to fit neutrality and due weight. The wording should be neutral and should not attempt to smear either the Falun Gong or the Chinese government.Leugen9001 (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Topically, the Chinese Government regard is clearly a prominent part of the history Falun Gong. The public disposition, reports, and self definition should also be given due weight, as appropriate. It is not our mission to make anyone look good- only report; this very well may include context that reflects poorly in the mind of readers. So, sure, "smear" no one- but don't white-wash actions either; protecting folks from themselves isn't our mission.

Our job is to contrive a concise document recording key elements to provide a timely apprehension of the topic; the lead acts as a definitive summation of that topic. For sure, "evil cult" is not the common, objective understanding of Falun Gong- nor is "cult" resloved, a hedge offered up only after the baldly pejorative description was rejected. Depending on manifestation, I might strongly support mention of the characterization in a section speaking to the Chinese Government's relationship with Falun Gong- but in the lead? Absolutely not- and not just because doing so would harness Wikipedia to a partisan agenda. Partisans CAN have facts right, or not -but we must eschew judgements as we may, leaving valuation to the reader. Here, "cult" is a judgement we are not pressed to make- and including the characterization in the lead would be imposing a valuation.

As with most belief systems, Falun Gong inspires judgement. My personal experience with Falun Gong has been limited to a dance-theater performance- it's what drew my interest to this page. That experience was unpleasant, the performance including aspersions and demagoguery for me and people like me. As distasteful and outrageous as that was, I am not here as defender or to speak in condemnation of Falun Gong or the Chinese Government- my contributions are aimed at the integrity of Wikipedia. That said, the article is not a place for editor testimony or partisan advocacy. Mavigogun (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this should be primarily focused on making a good encyclopedia article. I think that both User:Mavigogun and User:CaradhrasAiguo are contributing in good faith. I think we should distinguish between the WP:LEAD and the first paragraph of the lead. In both versions the Communist Party's view on Falun Gong is stated, but it seems that, correct me if I am wrong, User:CaradhrasAiguo would like it to be mentioned in the first paragraph. This begs the question: how prominent should the mention of its perception as a cult be?

The version by User:Gw2005 places the text is alternatively known as a cult in front of or religious spiritual practice that combines meditation and qigong exercises with a moral philosophy. I think that this is an overemphasis because its perception as a cult is a notable but not defining characteristic: we must first define what the Falun Gong even is before we can talk about people seeing it as a cult. If we decide to include it--a big "if" that will depend on far stronger consensus than a few editors--then we should include it after the group's definition.

Furthermore, section 3 states Although it is often referred to as such in journalistic literature, Falun Gong does not satisfy the definition of a "sect" or "cult." Having a prominent mention of the accusations that the group is a cult would require changing the entire article, which would in turn require a thorough check of what reliable, independent sources say on this matter. Independent sources means no Xinhua, CCTV, Epoch Times, or any websites with a potential partisan point of view, for or against. Leugen9001 (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Just do it in a neutral way, so long as it does not give the impression that "Falun Gong is illegal in Hong Kong", and make it clear to the readers that it is the mainland authorities who are cracking down the practitioners. It is obvious that Hong Kong practitioners have existed for many years, and the Hong Kong police do nothing. However, I have not seen Falun Gong practitioners in Macau, so I am not sure whether the Communist Party cracks down the Macau practitioners or not. Even if something was done in Macau to Falun Gong's disadvantage, it could have been done clandestinely. Tony85poon (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Put it in the fourth paragraph, and attribute it clearly to the Chinese government (the one that begins On 20 July 1999, the Communist Party leadership initiated a nationwide crackdown and multifaceted propaganda campaign intended to eradicate the practice... Their characterization as a cult by the Chinese government is part of that crackdown and is relevant only in that context. Saying 'some people' consider them a cult or that they're 'also known' as a cult is WP:WEASEL, and placing the opinions of the Chinese government all over the lead is WP:UNDUE - it should be worked into the existing paragraph on that topic. It absolutely cannot be mentioned without attribution - "cult" is plainly not NPOV language, so it must be attributed, and in this case virtually all coverage makes it clear that that description is coming from a single source. We can say "the Chinese government considers them a cult" or something of that nature, but we can't say "they're also considered a cult" without specifying who thinks that. -- Aquillion (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I strongly support the above summation and recommendation by Aquillion speaking to source clarity (Chinese Government), due weight (in section associated with Chinese Government regard), and parsing of weaselly wording ("also known").

I'll remind participants in this discussion that our own personal experience is not a basis for editing- if you just KNOW something is so, you gotta find credible references of sufficient weight to support the edit.

Lastly, while presuming good faith generally, we are amidst a concerted Falun Gong-related vandalism campaign, with rotating sock-puppet accounts used to damage a number of pages related to this topic. Some such are overt, with hostile user names and juvenile edits marking them clearly, while others are more subtle. Amidst all that noise, it is incumbent for editors acting in good faith to make the difference between their efforts and vandals plain by exemplifying the values of Wikipedia.Mavigogun (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Show me the where the "subtle vandalism" exactly are. I would like to have a look and chime in when necessary. I believe that Wiki-administrators should do the right thing! Block vandalists from editing for a certain period of time. If they do nothing and tolerate vandalism, what's the point of having administrators in the first place? Tony85poon (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I like to weigh in after reading this section and the ones before it, that this article is compromised by falun gong apologists who are censoring anyone out of their bias. And comprising this article. It is obvious that falun gong is a cult for one indisputable reason. The leader and creator Li is the one who created the spiritual laws by himself and expects everyone to just take his word for it. One of such laws is that mixed race people can't go to heaven. Which conveniently discourage interracial relationships using religion to influence others. I call it brainwashing because it's really just manipulative tactics from people who are against race mixing. Same subtle thing with gays.

There's many examples and fully documented history like Li discouraging modern medicines, etc that are not on the article still.

Instead there is an edit war where editors use beuacratic smokescreens to silence other editors who are not FG apologists and who WISHES to put in documented facts that are fully BACKED by reliable sources aka LI HIMSELF. That he discouraged others of modern medicines when ill, he made-up stories of evil super-intelligent aliens who made our technology, he also claims to be very special person in that only he has the capacity to save people from the apocalypse, etc, etc. NoNE of that is written because of editors who are clearly sweeping it under the rug and trying to bully others into not writing any of that. Instead they pressure other editors to have a consensus where FG is shown only positively.. I suspect political bias as I find it hard to believe why an obvious cult is being protected here. I read the entire discussion from beginning to end just now and genuinely shocked.

• I believe that as long as you have indisputable facts that are backed solidly by reliable professionally documented secondary sources like Universities, newspapers, or Li's own made publications etc. Then anyone who tries to delete or suppress that information or call it a fringe belief or some other excuse, should be banned. And their edits reversed.

120.18.48.193 (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mavigogun..I think the solution is to create a new dedicated section in this article to Cults, and the arguments for why it is a cult and reasons against it, by published scholars and solid secondary sources.. Btw you say that homophobia is also present in Christianity and that Christianity is not deemed a cult. True but the key difference is that Christianity was a religion created approx 2 thousand years ago. Whereas Falun Gong was created only a few decades ago by a man who is currently alive and made it all up all by himself and has called it a religion in which he's conveniently the important leader, which now deeply influences vulnerable others to fully believe him. To believe that mixed race people can't go to heaven and also gays are inherently a rotten lot of individuals because karma only attacks bad people. And that Lee is a special person of great wisdom.

That's the straight facts and on Wikipedia here, editors DO have an objective duty to highlight the FACT that it is different from conventional religions in that the owner is ALIVE, the fact that he made it up all by himself including his self importance and lastly if you want to be OBJECTIVE. The chinese gov criticised him for telling people not to take modern medicine because of karma, aliens scaremongering, apocalypse, claiming to be special and that he can help people get to heaven if they only qualify via his PREJUDICED laws, etc. If you were truly impartial and not taking sides. THERE IS NO REASON to not put that piece of real history in this article. BUT IT'S NOT For no good reasons..

and i feel it's ONLY due to editors' bias and politics that indeed impeded and have held back the article's integrity for far too long for many years now. That is not good in any way. There needs to NOW be a section without excuses that gives a voice to professional documented scholars who believe it's a cult, like the woman in this source link below.

Personally I believe that a man who self appoints himself as a Buddha in modern times is a potential cult leader. The same with any man who appointed himself as Jesus reincarnated. And Lee calling himself in this day and age that he is a special person with sole knowledge and abilities to outlive the apocalypse, deal with high tech non human aliens and help you understand how go to heaven using his rules, without explaining how he knows this stuff, sounds like a cult influencer to me.

https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Kavan_ANZCA08.pdf 120.18.48.193 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'm an aussie living in Sydney and am the same guy with previous ip address ~ 120.18.48.193. I use a mobile phone on Vodafone network so my ip address automatically changes. But I'm the very same person as directly above and continuing on with OP's question on how to "deal with the characterization of the group as a cult by the Chinese government". I think by simply quoting the Chinese government official statement about FG as a cult and describing its validity. Seems obvious enough. 🙊

I casually practiced FG in 2016 and have seen first-hand the points made. They aren't ridiculous. Like how they treat people who ask questions is so true. Like why should we believe Li's questionable claims and what makes him that legitimately special. I smelt a rat of deception which is why i left in the first place. I thought Wikipedia is at least the place where objectiveness and openness of the facts and full coverage answers are protected. Instead this page article literally reads as a FG promotional pamphlet where it hides the obvious but inconvenient truth.

They almost won me over with peer pressure and non scientific backed FAKE promises that you can achieve supernatural powers beyond your human peers. And FG is akin of the political agenda of xenophobia, pure race idolising, homophobia, luring less mature people with promises of magical benefits like telekinesis and immortality, beuacratic stonewalling and peer pressure on the suppression of asking questions or factual unflattering opinions about FG legitimacy. Any mention of obvious but inconvenient truths is met with accusations.

Additionally the Chinese government called it a cult because it obviously is a cult. How can Wikipedia consensus nowadays take political sides on a factual topic?😕

<Comment: I think users on all sides should desist from edit warring. We should maintain the previous consensus wording until a new consensus is reached. Leugen9001>

<The current article has the effect of creating a caricaturized and unhelpful view of the Chinese Government's propaganda: State-run loudspeakers saying that a good socialist citizen must be a liar who is unkind and gives up easily! I believe that we must, within reason, include some of the evidence cited by the Chinese Government--not to prove their view right, of course, but rather to provide due weight to covering the existence of notable things said about Falun Gong, keeping in mind relevant policy and good editorial practice. --Leugen9001 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)>

Leugen9001 already appears to have ingrained political bias against the Chinese government and the reasons why he distorts the consensus inappropriately.

- Only objective factual information should take precedence and top priority over any politically biased consensus. 

The ccp in relevance to this particular discussion, published this official statement about Falun Gong to back their reasoning. It should be fairly included in this article without any more excuses. And not to just cherrypick statements that make them look bad.

< “Falun Gong is against modern science, preaches the end of the world, forbids its followers watching TV or being treated in hospital and maintains that diseases do not exist and that ailments are due to sins people commit. They preached that UFOs had arrived on earth; aliens had taken over human bodies, and were trying to annihilate humanity through the control of TV and radio.“ >

Based on the indisputed source already given in this discussion, that entire relevant paragraph from the Chinese Government can not be seriously argued as being far from truth.

Source - https://www.patheos.com/blogs/wakeupcall/2013/10/falungong/ 120.17.40.64 (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

On the cult label and related topics discussed above, here are some finding from experts and reliable sources

1. The US Freedom House’s *Written Statement for Congressional-Executive Commission on China Hearing - Falun Gong: Review and Update The Origins and Long-Term Consequences of the Communist Party’s Campaign against Falun Gong says: “One more point deserves clarification. The CCP and Chinese officials typically assert that Falun Gong needed to banned because it is an “evil cult” that was having a nefarious influence on society. The claims have not held up to scrutiny when investigated in China, nor when one considers Falun Gong’s spread in other parts of the world, including democratic Taiwan. As importantly, in the context of the current discussion, it was only several months after Jiang initiated the campaign that a resolution was passed punishing involvement with “heretical organizations” and that the Party’s propaganda apparatus zeroed in on a slightly manipulated English translation of the Chinese term xiejiao to claim that Falun Gong was an “evil cult.”[17] Unfortunately, today, media reports about Falun Gong often erroneously state that “Falun Gong was banned as an ‘evil cult’,” with little further explanation. In fact, the label came later and as noted above, the reasons behind it had little to do with anything “evil” about Falun Gong. By using this incomplete reference, media inadvertently repeat the Party line and may plant the thought in readers’ minds that a repressive campaign that has turned millions of lives upside down might be justified.
2. The label “evil cult” was given to Falun Gong by Jiang Zemin several months into his campaign to crush Falun Gong. Jiang bypassed the Chinese legal system and initiated his persecution via edict. On July 20th, 1999, without warning, Falun Gong practitioners were arrested in large numbers throughout China, though having broken no law. On July 22nd, a massive propaganda campaign demonizing Falun Gong was launched which spurred even greater numbers of arrests and incarceration. The persecution continues today and has caused terrible suffering to innocent people. It is worth noting that the resolution mentioned in the Freedom House report above, which was passed in October 1999 by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China did not mention Falun Gong at all. Following the Resolution, in 2000, The China State Council and China Public Security Department published a list of illegal cults, which did not include Falun Gong either. There is no legal basis for Jiang Zemin’s persecution, according to one European Parliament testimony
3. A Freedom House Special Report: The Battle for China’s Spirit (Page 112) "Chinese state media and officials have offered their own explanation for the crackdown, seeking to frame the campaign as a necessary move against an alleged “evil cult” that had a nefarious influence on society. But such claims run counter to internal party documents and the lack of harmful outcomes in other countries where Falun Gong has spread. International scholars have repeatedly concluded that Falun Gong does not have the attributes of a cult.24Even in China, the label only appeared in party discourse in October 1999, months after the crackdown was launched, as the propaganda apparatus seized on a manipulated English translation of the Chinese term xiejiao. This suggests that the term was applied retroactively to justify a violent campaign that was provoking international and domestic criticism. David Ownby, a leading scholar on Chinese religions, notes:The entire issue of the supposed cultic nature of Falun Gong was a red herring from the beginning, cleverly exploited by the Chinese state to blunt the appeal of Falun Gong and the effectiveness of the group’s activities outside China." Marvin 2009 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Currently the page was just added a paragraph saying "Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult." However, this cannot be found at the provided 1st source. Is it an Original Research? The 2nd source is quoted from CCP mouthpiece media Xinhua, which obviously is biased on this topic. As such, the added content is not reasonable.

In response to the IP user above, please note, Ethan Gutmann notes that Falun Gong's teachings are "essentially indistinguishable" from traditional religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism.[1] Pleas also note what Noah Porter said in his book [2]:“After doing some more reading and thinking, I came to a few conclusions: I realized that Falun Gong might teach these things are not good, but they would not try to impose their beliefs on others in a way that I would find objectionable. For example, they would not prevent a biology or astronomy professor from teaching evolution or a more mundane origin and composition for the moon, nor would they take any action against rock musicians.” As to the concern over Falun Gong’s teachings on distinct heavens for people of different races, this aspect of the practice’s cosmology is "in no way amounts to an endorsement of racial purity," and in fact many Falun Gong practitioners have interracial children.

1. BTW, CCP demonizing Falun Gong is a basic fact, which has been well documented. Here is one example Daniel B. Wright: The Promise of Revolution: Stories of Fulfillment and Struggle in China's Hinterland where China scholars asserted that for several months after Falun Gong was outlawed, China Central Television's evening news contained little but anti-Falun Gong rhetoric; the government operation was "a study in all-out demonization". CCP sources are not reliable on this topic. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

okay first of all. I don't need all that irrelevant and off topic information. You're clearly deliberately diverting away from the topic that I highlighted and filling it with your biased fluff apologist speech, without discussing in depth what i mentioned prior.

My point is that it's not indistinguishable from Christianity and islam. Saying otherwise is indeed Orwellian because the man who created fg and invented himself its highest leader and spiritual authority, is still alive and that info needs to be at least be put EXPLICITLY in the article's introduction, given its significance.

Also it doesn't matter what the Chinese communist party says. The important thing is to just publish their official statements objectively, like accusing LI of preaching against modern medicine and complex science, that he can help them survive the apolcolypse, etc and also based on external western sources, that actually did happen.

The claims that it is a cult is based inherently on Li's own publications, interviews and western scholars like Dr. Heather Kavan who professionally researches and studies cults.

https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Kavan_ANZCA08.pdf

Many of the sources were directly from Li himself. He did try to brainwash others that illness don't exist and are symptoms of karma and that taking medicines was counterproductive. That just alone is dangerous and illegal given the fact that Li himself was originally given an official health doctor position and high authority by the government when he initially started.

There are many qigong groups in China that are based on Buddhism, taoism, etc that are not banned nor prohibited. Tai chi, wushu and other traditional Chinese arts are still practised. Many of the reasons for why China disapproved of Li's newer traditions was not in the wrong.

When he was only teaching qigong, the government encouraged and praised him. But when he started talking about extraterrestrial aliens trying to perfect human cloning, modern medicine dangers, apocalypse, claiming to have inherent spiritual wisdom and can "save" people from the apocalypse if they listen to him and make him their highest leader. That was when they felt uncomfortable in continuing it.

If an aussie man in modern Australia did the same thing today, he would instantly be called a con artist and cult leader, and go to jail for abusing his doctor accreditation. Of course not everyone agrees it is a cult which is why there needs to be a dedicated section in the article that includes both sides of the arguments from published scholars. 120.17.227.48 (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think, in the lead paragraph, should be the mainstream opinion. And when we edit a belief or religion, we should be careful and responsible, avoiding being "out of context", or we may mislead and hurt others.Wetrace (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@wetrace PLEASE do not give me excuses on censoring important and significant FACTs like Li self claiming his special background and that he is alive today.

The introduction should ONLY have actual TRUE facts that are undeniable and NEEDED regardless of whether or not it appeals to the falun gong public relations censorship wishes.

Western media quotes Li’s own story that he was spiritually cultivated at ONLY the age of four, and at twelve years of age was discovered by an actual Taoist immortal being from the mountains.

When most westerners hear that today, alarms bells are naturally ringing because that's the typical self claimed line of so many cult leaders in the past decade. It reeks of fraud and calling it a religion does not give it an excuse to censor information that its creator and leader is alive. He is no god but only self claims to have special backgrounds. He will never be a god among those who don't rely on his self claimed words alone.

He only exploits politics here to shield his legitamacy of his religion and why unlike other cult leaders who are publicly seen for who they are, he is protected by 2 things. Politics and suppression of facts.

But Wikipedia should not have political biases nor should they censor information that people deserve to know.

If Wikipedia deliberately hides or suppresses REAL information away from significance, that his RELIGION IS not ancient but created very recently by him ALONE. Then ironically you are misleading others via lies of omission.

Because you make them assume that falun gong is an actual ancient religion handed down by thousands of generations. Making its heritage older than it really is because people like myself automatically assume religions are ancient. That is deceptive.

And most importantly, it must be known that only HE claims to be chosen by an immortal being to lead man. And only HE self claims that he was spiritually cultivated at age 4, etc. The egoism and sheer amount of obvious hard to believe bibliography of this man, is deliberately censored and edited out almost immediately.

Why?

Falun gong's security of its legitimacy is based on making sure the public knows as little as possible about its background.

However they don't own Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for the world and whatever ugly inconvenient reality. If it is true, and a big deal. It must not be censored. Let the people know about its background fully and let them judge for themselves. If a cult leader claimed to be the only one to save man from aliens and was chosen by a mysterious immortal living on s remote mountain.. Censoring that info is inappropriate.

I hope when someone writes that this religion is not ancient and created by Li who is conveniently the chosen leader because he self claimed that the immortal being had blessed him, etc are not to be censored anymore. Some people influence others with political ideology or ideas. He influences others ~ (the most naive falungong practitioners) by self claiming as a religious supernatural celestial, which is wrong. Personally i know that at least half the practitioners in Sydney don't truly believe it and leave, but I sadly witness young teenagers at high school age and confused with schizotypal personalities buy li's stories fully.

But most people are not naive and Wikipedia shouldn't have to hide any of that information because the falun gong public relations team are FULLY AWARE that the whole world is not as easily gullible and hence why they have to censor because if people know all the historical facts that are reported by western media and li's own interviews. They would not be kind. 120.17.227.48 (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I think it's not about politics but facts and edits in accordance with wiki-rules. Some opinion below for your reference.

1. The Original Research has no weight in editing, even though it is quite long.
2. I read some solid and fact-independent-verifiable experts' testimonies (links provided last time by another user: 〈The Origins and Long-Term Consequences of the Communist Party’s Campaign against Falun Gong 〉and 〈European Parliament testimony〉) in the US congress and European Parliament were conducted under oath. While, an anonymous IP user ,without evidence and reasonable discourse, assert those were biased !? Maybe this could tell who is biased here.
3. A piece of recent Catholic news 〈China's 'genocide' unlike any other〉 indicated that an unprecedented persecution toward Falun Gong practitioners is ongoing in China. In fact, many authoritative sources and institutional including also recognized that. Governments much concerned and oppose the persecution.
4. We, human have learned lessons from history, One perhaps due to being mislead ,unknown resentment and hatred, one could unwittingly mis-characterize the teachings of a faith using all kinds of so-called "political correctness" labels. 2000 years ago early Christian went through this, and so did today some belief like Falun Gong in the past decades.
5. Among all the belief systems, there are always something one cannot understand, or "out of context" and distortion.
6. In the world today, so many countries and institutions discuss that CCP has been infiltrating into the free world, but there are still numerous neutral scholars' studies and mainstream institutions impartially introduced Falun Gong faith issue, as referred in the page. The Conclusion of so many neutral scholars and mainstream institutions, based on verifiable facts, shall not be outweighed. Wetrace (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

what has any of that got to do with what i said? Ironically it seems like you are just full of politics and using political reasons to censor what is NOT even original research BUT literally Li's own publication itself. It can not be more of a "reliable source" than that. Saying otherwise is just Orwellian gaslighting tbh.

I am not endorsing an attitude of hate here but instead of transparency. If Li had indeed talked about aliens, modern medicines being harmful and to be discouraged, and that he claims that he was chosen by an immoral from the mountains at the age of 12, etc via his own verified interviews and published papers. Then excuses via political motives are not justifiable as Wikipedia does not take political sides, but instead is dedicated to being an encyclopedia.

Also do not attack my character but instead my actions. If anything, it appears that the other political motives are people with sinophobia or right wing nature. A Breitbart paper writes enthusiastly about falun gong. Many neo nazi papers and known white supremacists like kkk authors are obsessed with falun gong and from my understanding, Li is as Conservative as it gets. He never was able to fully accept homosexuality as being nothing wrong and to say otherwise, is white washing his public teachings that gayness is by rightfully judged by karma.

It is no secret that hardcore racists attack Muslims for their human rights violations, not because they actually care about Muslims nor human rights but they just want to attack them. Similarly they are most adverse to admitting good things about Muslims.. Same thing with non white chinese people.

So leave politics out of this. Using political reasons to censor actual information can go both ways. If the only reason why an information os to be censored is because of political biases.. Then you shouldn't be a Wikipedia editor.

And gaslighting false reasons however is not acceptable.. Li's own self published work and his own interviews with Western media, is not original research.

They're not liess. They're significant. And people have a right to be aware of it. Censoring it only means that you are afraid of people knowing the relevant truth and that is alarming.

120.18.154.73 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@marvin 2009 um no, do tell your biased politically china hawk, Ethan Gutmann that if any Living western man today claims he can walk on water, calls himself a saviour, can heal the terminally sick, etc then most of the modern world will not call it a religion but a cult.

At least Christianity nowadays has no "living" conman and its followers are following roughly 2 millenials of sacred beliefs after human Jesus has already long died. That's a huge difference and Ethan Gutmann is a biased china hawk who you seem to be very familiar with. I only just researched him and realise this topic is less about the facts but indeed nothing more than pathetic politics. Wikipedia should not take political sides and only present facts. What you completely deleted in the Wikipedia article are Verified Facts with plenty of solid evidence to back it, such as LI's own publishings in America.

The Irony is that the Chinese government is aware of Li's supernatural self claimed life stories whilst the vast majority of the west is completely unfamiliar with it. When i first tried fg, i honestly assumed Li was just a traditional fitness and philosophy instructor. I didn't actually expect a man who actually claims supernatural powers and can teach it to others. Whilst profiting from selling his commercial materials. No wonder it is an illegal religious activity if its helping a con man profit from sheer fraud.

And fyi, those Falun Gong practitioners who have interracial children, must be real proud that their children cannot go to heaven nor can the husband and wife be eternally together in the afterlife. *sarcasm*. Bro, Its classical passive aggressive manipulative brainwashing. Ie If i was a true naive fg believer, I of course wouldn't want to ever considering marrying a woman of a different race even if i really loved her. As i will painfully think I be only be separated from her in our afterlife for eternity. That's motivational enough to shy away from race mixing.

Your explanation and author are apologists grasping at straws here and maybe you shouldn't edit Wikipedia anymore as you are clearly biased to not accept reality of falun gong and delete information in the wiki article that should never have been deleted, whilst using mental gymnastic reasons for deleting it. An example of a cult is basically Li stating he has real superpowers and for others to reject modern medicine and listen to his solutions instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.228.42 (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

120.17.101.20 (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Considerations for lede section

I've just reverted some edits to the lede section for which there did not appear to be a consensus. This is a challenging article, particularly for editors who have not read extensively on the subject or are unfamiliar with inter alia differences between English and Chinese rendering of terms, or with Chinese religious traditions. For example, there's an extended debate among scholars about whether "new religious movement" is an appropriate label to apply to FLG. David Ownby, for instance, has written that it is an incoherent descriptor for FLG once you understand its origins in Chinese cultivation traditions. So you can certainly say that some people have described it this way—we have a whole section dedicated to the conflicting descriptors used for FLG—but it's far from the definitive descriptor. It also conflicts with the group's self-understanding as a practice that has been passed on privately for many generations. The debate around the "cult" appellation is even murkier, even when we set aside the ethics of allowing a group's persecutor to be the one that defines them (and that's not an insignificant consideration). The chief thing here is that the Chinese term "xie jiao" has a radically different meaning than "cult." The Chinese government has adopted the latter term for propaganda and PR purposes, but it's simply not accurate, and doesn't even reflect the Chinese government's internal logic. TheBlueCanoe 02:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

First if you read Susan Kavan's research. The chinese government had multiple different reasons why they disliked FALUN GONG. One of them was the fact they believed the leader was a phoney and was brainwashing people to believe in aliens and against modern medicines, etc That is basically them saying it is a cult. They had defined it as a cult by even explaining the specific criteria sufficient enough, using their language.

You appear to assume the only people who HAS EVER explicitly categorised falun gong as a brainwashing Cult is the Chinese government. Honestly the vast majority of Western people will agree that Falun gong is a cult when they learn the NON DECEPTIVE facts that its leader 'self' claims to be a CHOSEN ONE, who was handpicked by an immortal being in the mountains at age 12, etc and can teach people his supernatural secrets if they listen to him.

You don't have to be a chinese commie to think that. And even tho I know FG is a cult and personally I indeed label every person who claims to be the only one who can solely save others in the apocalypse and also delay the apocalypse, as a dishonest cultist. But that's just me.

My own opinion here and I don't appreciate you subtly and passive aggressively implying that I don't even honestly believe my opinion and simply a chinese communist official. That's blatant unwarranted paranoia designed to shut other people up.

I was an ex FG member, thinking initially it was just a fitness social club, and from my own personal experience. I met a woman who i had a polite argument with. She tried to convince me that i was living in a bubble and that our human mind was capable of more than we realise. She quoted the overused adage that humans only used like 1 percent of their brain and then she told me about telekinesis, telepathy, expert practitioners' claimed feats, etc and she was literally serious. I was SHOCKED but there's a confused 17 year old boy who was vulnerable and in a helpless period in his life, who naturally became attracted to the idea that he can become omnipotent powerful and solve all his life's problems like poor self esteem with learning supernatural abilities. He believed because he wanted to believe. And willfully ignoring any common sense that it's not real as that the practitioners themselves had no idea how to do telekinesis.His sense of reality was impaired because he was actually suffering a psychological break from reality and FG exploited all of that. I was disgusted to put it frankly. it was painfully hard to watch and i believe fg is an evil in itself because of that experience that broke my heart. I felt deep pity for that boy and the irony was i too had no clue after reading Wikipedia 2 years ago l, that FG lured people in with false promises of mastering telepathy and telekinesis that leader LI himself has self claimed to have mastered.

That was when I quit. Because I am a realist and nobody including Li himself has ever proven that telekinesis is a real thing. He made all these miraculous self claimed stories about himself and the ONLY people completely fooled into listening to his supernatural bibliography are vulnerable naive members who never bothered to practise critical thinking and ask the neccessary questions on why they should believe his sacred bibliography. On Wikipedia, those egotistic stories that Li made. are not anywhere close to explicitly written here because fg public relations know that majority of Westerners feel exactly the same way as me, after i FINALLY learn the whole thing.

FG is NOT an exercise group as most people seem to think. It's covertly posing as an actual religion with the leader painted as some kind of supernatural genius with self claims that no adult westerner with critical thinking, would ever easily fall for. The chinese government rejected his teachings as dishonest and even tho i don't agree with harvesting organs from people you dislike. I however don't believe that Li should be immune to all professional criticisms and that nobody can shed awareness on his cultist background.

@Thebluecanoe.. You are precisely doing that here by censoring any mention of the word "cult", even when it is officially the statement of China's government itself.. You could easily have contextually written that Chinese government dislikes fg and calls it an evil cult, to predominantly attack it. You don't have to literally remove the whole thing from awareness.

And please do not wrongly state the only people who ever calls FG as a cult is TYPICALLY the Chinese government.. Susan Kavan is an educated kiwi who does not work for the Chinese government and her sources indeed were directly LI'S own published papers that ONLY he wrote and there is no excuse to say that he didn't mean what he wrote and was only kidding. That zip don't fly.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, I am not EVEN suggesting that we call FG as a cult in Wikipedia. NO so please don't twist my words.

All i am suggesting here is CONSIDERATIONS of Inputting key significant facts in the lead section, that FG is different from major religions in that it was created very recently by a man who is still alive today. You say the religion is passed down many generations. That is misleading because it naturally gives the impression that it is an ancient religion. That's not the real story.

Also consider putting in the Lead Section that it is created by LI, who self claims, quoted in western interviews, to be chosen by a real life immortal from the mountain at the age of 12.

Most people will make up their own minds whether it is a cult or not. But at least you didn't withhold fair awareness away from them.

Cus a cult that censors Wikipedia so that people of the general public is not aware that its creator and self appointed leader is alive, claims to be chosen by an actual immortal being at age 12 and wrote that he can delay the apocalypse, etc, etc, is honestly how they can actually survive under the radar.

His self claimed written stories are clearly dishonest but censoring his stories on Wikipedia is equally dishonest. 120.18.154.73 (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I dislike the inappropriate censoring here and ganging up + editing out anyone who disagrees with them. With reasons that aren't justifiable. The chinese gov calls it a cult and removing it because you "personally" don't believe they genuinely meant it, is not your call to make. That's their official chosen public stance. They are largely significant to FG and you don't choose for them on what they publicly call FG.

And fyi, the Chinese gov literally critised Li publicly for brainwashing about aliens and preaching that modern medicines was counterproductive. Li later repeated the EXACT same stuff in western media and his publications in the west.

So can you tell me what the real true Chinese word is for cult? Regardless It seems like China already perfectly explained it as a group brainwashing people to believe in space aliens that arrived on earth a century ago and to not trust their modern medicine. Just because they didn't have the vocabulary for cult doesn't mean they genuinely don't see it as a cult.

If they used the English word of cult and completely understand the definition of that word. Then publicly that's their stance. Your argument to censor them is based purely on semantics. China had many con artists claiming to be gods.. xie jiao described the con artists which could also be termed a cult except the government used am umbrella term for the many conmen as illegal religious activities.

So don't use mental gymnastics to pursuade they don't genuinely believe it's a cult when clearly, based on the evidence and how they very specifically described it, they obviously did.

@thejluecanoe Also calling it a new religious movement is unethical as the religion is perpetrating the teachings that LI is the Chosen leader plus wise saviour with no equal, and we should regard all his egomaniac ramblings as spiritual law. Those spiritual laws are just stroking Li's ego as if he is actually superior to his fellow man

- "Li claims supernatural powers, developed through training with spiritual masters in the mountains from his youth; his book, Zhuan Falun ("Turning the Law Wheel"), posits that he can treat disease moreeffectively than medicine, and can telekinetically implant the falun, or law wheel, into the abdomens of his followers, where it absorbs and releases power as it spins (other beliefs attributed to Li are that he can fly, that Africa has a two billion-year-old nuclear reactor, and that aliens invaded Earth about a century ago, introducing modern technology; one type, he told Time magazine, "looks like a human, but has a nose that is made of bone")."

Can anyone honestly read the above information and not think that Li is clearly dishonest? Of course personal opinions are not allowed on Wikipedia article but I am not suggesting to say that he is dishonest.

Merely to simply add sufficiently li's many supernatural and egotistic claims into the Wikipedia lead section so people can know essentially who the sole author/leader of the religion Li really is and make up their own minds. As currently the lead section needs that.

Source http://i.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/295092/The-gospel-truth-Falun-Gong

120.18.154.73 (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Isn't much of that material — which is indeed relevant — already in the article, where it is properly contextualized and cited to appropriate sources? I think the objection so far is to the peremptory addition of contested content in the lead. The personal background is not particularly relevant or helpful, though I am sorry to hear the story. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cleopatran Apolocolypse That background story is the WAY to make a point that this article desperately needs to improve it into a neutral full article MAYBE at last. I read this Wikipedia article 2 years ago and realised it needs so much work.

Deleting it will only hinder awareness. I can prove it strongly to everyone and maybe to you only if you are truly objective here. And not trying to make an excuse to edit me out.

Let me tell you something.🙁😢

If I were to emphasise on the article rn that Li had claimed he mastered supernatural powers and stated he was selected by an immortal at age of 12.

And he published papers in the west where he claims that modern medicine was ineffective compared to his methods. And most importantly, talked about the aliens who landed on our planet whilst claiming to be an expert of their existence.

All these facts are true and deserve a place on the article. Will it seriously last for very long?

I'll most likely be edited out within a week completely via lame excuses that it is ie, a fringe belief or other beuacratic biased mental gymnastics rationales that are hard to beat without my story here.

Nobody denies that Li made a lot of self claims of spiritual wisdoms and that he is the master of supernatural abilities. He goes to teach other people his wisdom and his "self" claimed mastery of the supernatural arts. True followers only listen to him because they believe what he is telling them.

Is it harmful?

He pushes claims that heaven is where mixed race people are destined to be eternally away from their "pure race" parent.

He makes practitioners to tell people FACTS that Li mastered telepathy, telekinesis, and ETC where apparently he learned them from an immortal in the mountains. And so they too can master telekinesis omg....because Li is the honest proof of that.

Li made his own larger than life claims of supernatural mastery in his own publication books where he is at war with aliens and demons that indeed sounds like a chapter from the x files.

The falun gong group is making promises to recruits that they can seriously teach you the skills of telepathy, telekinesis, etc whilst claiming that Li has mastered those arts.

Which is why that it is CRITICIAL that we emphasise in Wikipedia that it was LI who authored those teachings and claimed his own credibility that he was the highest master of these spiritual arts. And he dictated that his followers should believe he is honest and that his teachings are of his high quality wisdom.

- so instead of "FG teaches that, etc, etc ~it has to be changed into Li teaches that, etc, etc and his practitioners relay his teachings into others. And his supernatural life story of aliens, telepathy, training with immortals must be CLEARLY inputted in the Lead Section.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.228.42 (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC) 

But in Wikipedia rn, it talks about the religion as an independent separate thing as if it is no different from any other conventional religion. It distances li from the explanations of the individual teachings, giving it an impression that each teaching is an ancient established commandment.

- By not clearly linking Li as being the key person who created those teachings out of thin air and claim them as spiritual laws, is sneaky. Every teaching in the article must explicitly identify its author aka LI and in the lead section must have Li's full background and every one of his self claimed stories. Otherwise you are censoring the real person behind the teachings deliberately. 

And That has this deceptive effect to help distance Li away from it almost as if the religion is not being pushed by him. As if it wasn't created by him. Like he never boasted of telekinesis and telepathy or wisdom of apocalypse, that was used to convince followers of his credibility and that's the impression people get when reading the article. And like sheep, they fully accept other people to trust his honesty that his wisdom is divine. 

Except i question it because i see them push an obvious lie too shamelessly. And hide the extent by white washing the wiki article equally dishonestly and just using the Chinese government organ harvesting tragedy, to shield them from people bringing awareness to their own dishonesty.

I'm Sorry but just because one dishonest person had a difficult time, does not give him the right to con other people without criticism.

Wikipedia for this article is very sneaky in that it generally protects Li from having any kind of obvious causality with falungong, and it is as if followers are merely choosing him as their leader without his actions, and they are just learning healthy habits from him. Whereas in reality it's a cult when some poor followers are being convinced that Li's teachings can teach them telepathy and telekinesis because Li himself self claims to have learned it from an immortal and practitioners all treat him aa a honest man that is enough to convince naive individuals.

That is the reality and none of what i written is false or out of context. Sorry if i refuse to believe it is okay to censor FACTS that Li talked about aliens and he said that an immortal in the mountains literally chose him at age 12. Because his religion is now hurting innocent delusional boys, who is going to spend the next decade trying genuinely hard out of desperation, to master telepathy, and end up depressed that he cannot master it like dishonest Li had self claimed to do.

In Wikipedia rn, you can't see anything resembling my story in an obvious way. That's the problem and why my story is so Important.

- It is all instead written neatly and people tend to read it and leave. If they read my story, they'll actually be like h*ly c*rap.. I definitely didn't see that on the Wikipedia page.. I didn't realise that this group has people telling other people that li mastered telekinesis and was trained by an actual immortal being.. And that they claim he mastered those arts and they can teach me to become like him and master telekinesis because we only use 1 percent of our brains"

No, 😭 no one will read the Wikipedia article rn and is able to say that despite none of what I said is false.. Why? Because of criminal censoring and why my story needs to stay here until this article becomes improved and emphasise That those teachings are solely created from LI who claims they are wisdom but they are his words alone and every teaching im the article must be emphasised that it was created by Li FIRST and to also include his background and all his outrageous self claims OPENLY in the LEAD Section without illegal censoring so people can finally actually understand the author of those teachings.

And yes, i do have a real problem watching those fg practitioners brainwashing that poor inexperienced boy into believing he can master telepathy because of a leader who is obviously lying about his supernatural life story. 😥

Deep down I fear many editors here are likely falun gong public relations team playing defence and making sure these true facts are never written here. I suspect they know the same as me and likely they don't even think that Li is a honest person at all.

Because if they were true believers, they will logically allow statements like "li claims that he was chosen by an immortal at age 12, etc" and "scaremongering warnings of outer space aliens in his TIME interviews" to be written on the article because they see it as the obvious truth.

But they deliberately censor all that. Only because they know and fear that the rest of the world finally sees that as obvious dishonesty. Because it is. 120.18.154.73 (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@bluecanoe you do need to reverse your last censoring as the Chinese gov didn't lie about officially calling it a cult. That is a solid fact backed by reliable evidence. You are welcome to add contextual information but you should never delete it completely as it is important part of falun gong's history.

When I read western news even today. They white wash it by saying china banned them because of political reasons. That they were "larger" and preached true democracy. And I actually agreed with them once without knowing anything at all prior. Except the facts were that China wasn't even aware of what they were doing only until they surrounded government buildings in protest because some of them were previously arrested by local police for harassing a university professor who criticised their leader as a fraud, to retract his opinion.

That does not sound very democratic and once china began to see what the fuss was all about, all they had to do was read Li's books and teachings to know enough that he is a con man using religion to profit from people who believed him completely.

Fg original enemies were journalists and university scholars who published their opinion that Li was a fraud and those critics were publicly protested against, LONG before fg was ever termed illegal. Fg went to the government later on, hoping that the gov would be pressured to help them except the gov took the critic's side as they deemed fg as fraudulent too.

Who in the right mind would ever be okay with a man who decieve others that he is some kind of supernatural superhero plus scaremongers complete false fictional claims about aliens, 2 billion old nuclear reactors in Africa, training with an immortal in the mountains during his youth and teaching people how to be more like him, to remember to stay with your own race, see homosexuality as an immoral act against the universe which karma itself will assure to punish, and that medical medicine is doing more harm than good if you were a true believer.

Before people go call me a bigot. I actually respect the concept of reincarnation but that's very different from listening to another living person who shamefully lies about having supernatural powers and can teach it to others without showing proof of his boasts.

"illegal religious activity" or "xie jiao" is merely the umbrella official legal terms that china had for fg to classify its legal status. The word cult is simply more understandable to the western context who doesn't have laws specifically targeting cults. We only have laws against fraud which is how a western government would criminalise a cult. They don't ever say you're arrested for cult charges but for mass "fraud".

In china, outside of their 5 sanctioned established religions. They have a history of wacky religions that deem a living person, who is often the leader, author and benefactor, to have supernatural powers and promises he can teach it to others at a price. They Are all cults but China only calls them "xie jiao". The interpretation is more accurately a simpler way to state that the religion is illegal because it qualifies as a criminal level cult.

Read below article https://www.patheos.com/blogs/wakeupcall/2013/10/falungong/

If there was a mass cult in china, they will still call it "xie jiao" in their language. They deemed fg was not a normal conventional qiging health group but one that had a leader who was making others believe he's the real life Buddha who can do telepathy and telekinesis, etc and created spiritual laws that conflicted with modern common sense such as trusting your doctor.

The last part about preaching medicine was harmful, was one of the major public reasons why LI got kicked out of China. And Even After they publicly accused him of precisely that. Li still published papers in the west for his followers to read explaining specifically why modern medicine is harmful because it angers karma. What was his excuse for writing that? I'm not even surprised given the ego of this man to think he is immune to the consequences and stubbornly likes to think he knows more than medical professionals who trained their entire lives to help people.

Also stop saying the religion was passed down by many generations. That is deceptive. I am older than the entire falun gong religion itself and i am a millenial. Don't mislead others as if falun gong didn't all start in the early 90s less than 3 decades ago. And you have no qualified reasons to edit that information out of lede section, as political reasons are not allowed.

This Wikipedia article is constant white washing facts by using only biased china hawk editors who politicised fg for their own agenda and know Simply by putting Li's publications and his self claims in the lead section. Other people will finally see it like me.. However because of the Internet, li's published work publicly archived, Susan kavan, etc. It's only a matter of time when people begin to be more aware so censoring real facts is a losing battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.17.66 (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

120.18.154.73 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, what is "Wikipedia rn"? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@apocolapyse I thought that was pretty obvious. It was in reference to the Wikipedia article "right now" on Falun Gong as of Anzac day 2019. What else could I be referring to?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong

Its current state is the sum of a long history of deleting and censoring info COMPLETELY without valid enough reasons. And even if a logical reason is actually given, it is used in conjunction with excessively deleting the entire thing instead of editing it proportionately.. A good relevant example is just last month. When USER Marvin 2009 removed completely this paragraph that was added in.

- However, despite arguements of such, Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult. For example, Li Hongzhi, the creator of Falun Gong, was classified as "possessing superhuman abilities and god-like insight" in his biography in 1993-94.[84]There are also reports over advocating refusal of normal medical treatments for not only the practitioner,[85], with accounts of relatives being persuaded not to use medical assistances as well.

For the record, that was inputted by someone else. Not me. Not like it matters but it was directly bought to my awareness by Marvin 2009, who said it was Original research despite Li did claim mastery of telepathy, delaying the apocalypse, etc in his early books. And he did publish official fg papers to his followers in the west, arguing for the refusal of normal medical treatments.

There is no excuses nor qualifying reasons behind censoring that info at all. That's what's going on that is disturbing. And should be bought into light to be discussed publicly. 120.17.101.20 (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

What you said is misleading.

1. Before the editing I noted on this talk page: "Currently the page was just added a paragraph saying "Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult." However, this cannot be found at the provided 1st source. Is it an Original Research? The 2nd source is quoted from CCP mouthpiece media Xinhua, which obviously is biased on this topic. As such, the added content is not reasonable". In other words, the 1 st source does not support the statement (Original Research) and the 2nd CCP source is not Reliable Source on this topic. As there was no response in 5 days, I did the edit.
2. The persecution and hate propaganda CCP conducted was well documented in reports from international human rights organizations and numerous neutral scholars' studies. It is obvious that CCP apologist is passionate to negate and distort the basic persecution facts and promote CCP propaganda, including cult label, but this isn't a platform for anyone's lengthy Original Research expression. CCP media had tons of former Falun Gong practitioners who followed the party line in demonizing FG. Anonymous IP user's claiming to be an ex Falun Gong practitioner is telling.
3. As per one report from New York Times, CCP looks like a cult based on CCP's own cult definition. Marvin 2009 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Falun Gong for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Falun Gong is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Falun Gong until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate censoring culture and bullying by FG defensive

Marvin 2009 removed an entire paragraph using what i honestly recognise as merely beuacratical and invalid reasoning . I believe that biased censoring is a serious issue here and degrading the quality of this article due to its political nature.

I believe that a new dedicated section needs to be created to discus openly whether an information truly has a right to be deleted or not from the article.

One editor has last month inputted the following information.

- "However, despite arguements of such, Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult. For example, Li Hongzhi, the creator of Falun Gong, was classified as "possessing superhuman abilities and god-like insight" in his biography in 1993-94.[84]There are also reports over advocating refusal of normal medical treatments for not only the practitioner,[85], with accounts of relatives being persuaded not to use medical assistances as well."

Marvin 2009 wrote the following after deleting the paragraph in question.

- "Currently the page was just added a paragraph saying "Falun Gong possess multiple qualities of a cult." However, this cannot be found at the provided 1st source. Is it an Original Research? The 2nd source is quoted from CCP mouthpiece media Xinhua, which obviously is biased on this topic. As such, the added content is not reasonable."

That reasoning is not valid simply for one because it deleted the entire second sentence using an excuse that the source given, didn't state it had multi qualities of a cult.. And deleted the entire third sentence because the second source was a ccp source. However that could have easily be appropriately re-edited to state that ccp were the ones making that report.

Regardless Li claiming to have supernatural powers and teach it to other people.. Is a pretty standard recognised hallmark of a typical cult. If you need a source to also tell you that a living person today claiming to be a God with superpowers and that person is convincing people to believe him, is a cult. That's unnecessary and simply creating artificial barriers

Cult are easily understood as a social group that's brainwashing its followers, in a way that are generally dishonest or harmful or them claiming their living leader as their saviour who has supernatural powers. The following are facts that are solid.. Can you prove they are fake?

- Li is a man who publicly claims to have supernatural powers that he learned in his youth from an Immortal, such as telepathy and can teach it to others.

- Li also published papers "in the west", telling people about why they should reject modern medicine when they are ill.

- A group that brainwashes people into believing a man has supernatural powers and tries to make others believe that Li knows more than medical professionals.

Those are the "numerous" qualities of a cult which btw is a word that most average person would not find hard to understand.

You don't need to have a source to back everything if it doesn't need it. And even then, you didn't have to delete it all..Could have edited it appropriately but that was not enough to appease certain editors agendas that their undesired yet correct and significant information, is to be censored and not to be discussed fairly.

~ I have been smeared a ccp apologist here. I'm not the one trying to hide information about fg. If they are incorrect or lies that i am trying to protect. I will accept my freedom of speech here to be ceased.. But I am advocating protecting information that are significant and true, from being deleted here. That is how I believe I am the among very few editors improving this article by bringing awareness to inappropriate censoring that has been ongoing for many years on this article.

I don't care about the politics. In fact, I find fg to be politicised more by china hawks with an agenda. Who uses politics to create a false image of falun gong. Via censoring real information which isn't artificial. If lt was, then clearly chinese government is behind that.

- The communists didn't make Li lie about his background, or push him to talk about aliens in times interviews, nor make him write papers telling followers why modern medicine is doing more harm than good.

The only editors with political agendas, are the ones who hide facts like Li claiming stories of aliens and why I originally became aware of such censoring.

Regardless if the fg leader indeed published those papers against modern medicine in the west. They should be recorded on Wikipedia..

If Li claims he mastered supernatural powers like telekinesis, telepathy, etc and those significant facts are correct. Then you have no right to remove facts from Wikipedia. I am not going to argue politics with editors but instead whether or not certain information are facts or not.

This section needs to be created and not blocked. And to be properly vetted. I will accept a ban if i am Protecting information that is untrue. But i suggest a ban for those who are vicious on doing whatever it takes to censor information that shouldn't be censured on the basis of freedom of information. -

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Unicornblood2018:. I note a biographer attributed statements to Li Hongzhi, but some questions. Is the classification as a cult verifiable? Does any other source dispute that view? cygnis insignis 16:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i already written her down many times. Her name is Heather Kavan. But the other editors shoot her down as ccp propagandist and attack her. I originally covered her work thoroughly in my original section. Read url link below or alternatively just download her pdf direct from Massey University server.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_41

https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/Communication%20and%20Journalism/ANZCA%202008/Refereed%20Papers/Kavan_ANZCA08.pdf

Unicornblood2018 (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Unicornblood2018:. There is a lot of unnecessary discussion, extensive concerns about other users contributions are not appropriate here. I'm reading that study now. I will look at what is proposed for inclusion in the article, then give my view. cygnis insignis 17:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm something of a newcomer to this complex topic... but I encourage others to look a little through the archive of the discussion. The Kavan material has been addressed at length. I think the short version is that the conference presentation of a professor of media is not (nearly) as reliable a source as the enthographic field work of scholars of Chinese religion. There is a lot of emotion and foruming, which we should avoid. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the discussion, perhaps I will. The Kavan study is not cited in the article, the currently blocked user provided that above, and it was as good a place to start 'measuring a circle' as any other point. @Cleopatran Apocalypse: did you notice where it was decided to be unsuitable for inclusion? Without mentioning the topics which I see as subject to similar problems in content building, some of the competing narratives are shaped by propaganda agencies; fairly obvious that verifiable facts are going to be difficult to find. I'll keep reading the sources and see what emerges as obvious improvements here, those ethnographic studies would be handy if someone has a link. cygnis insignis 08:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Some sources

I'll add some links here as I'm revising what I've read. cygnis insignis 09:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Cited by Kavan as another view, some Christopher Hitchens (being Christopher Hitchens ;-)

• Hitchens, Christopher (2 November 2000). "For Whom the Gong Tolls".

When there are questions whether an article is reliable to not, it sounds quite a good practice to trace the views cited in the article. Thanks.

After a quick look at the Christopher Hitchens source, it seems that Hitchens heavily relied on Sima Nan.

Unfortunately, as the Wikipedia Sima Nan page stated Sima “is well known for his staunch support of Chinese Communist Party values and nationalistic, anti-American and anti-universal value sentiments, based on source 1 The page also said The Wall Street Journal describes Sima as "one of China's most divisive advocates of neo-Maoist ideology", whereas Reuters characterized him as "Communist Party defender".Online, Chinese netizens consider him an "anti-America warrior", as a typical entry on Sima's microblog reads: “America is the enemy of all the people in the world... ”

I notice that James Miller’s book Chinese Religions in Contemporary Societies mentioned throughout 1995, former qigong master Sima Nan waged anti qigong activity. (page 164).

According to this book and multiple Chinese sources one example, my understanding is: in 1980s when CCP did not disapprove of qigong, China experienced Qigong boom. There were so many Qigong masters at that time, and Sima was one Qigong “master” as well. By mid 1990s, CCP started to criticize Qigong. It is not unusual that CCP party member Sima closely followed the CCP party line and quickly became the anti-qigong activist. This indicates Sima Nan’s words are not credible on this topic.

BTW, [ https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1451/ Falun Gong in the United States: An ethnographic study] looks like a comprehensive source. Sorry, in recent years it cannot be accessed for free any more. Marvin 2009 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)